May 27, 2010

James Morey asked many questions in a previous conversation. They are all important questions, if someone is honestly seeking answers. We have seen in the past that many are not seeking answers, but seek an argument. There is a difference. While we all love to banter here I thought it would be fitting to answer these questions as a post.

First, James here is a kind man. He questions the morality of hell and Christianity. I believe at one time he claimed "I'm effectively a Buddhist/Taoist."

I am sure its safe to say that his driving force is compassion, moderation, and humility towards others. Unlike Atheists, Buddhists may have some assemblance of moral accountability. To who is another subject to discuss.

Dan,

So you would say, rather that without God there is no basis for morality, without God there would be no morality, period. So all secular or differently religious ethical systems that lead to goodness are ultimately God's doing.

...and is it fair to say that you believe it is simply impossible to be good without God, regardless of whether or not a person believes in the existence of a god?

Would it follow that the ultimate human good, in your mind, is acceptance of Jesus as god/savior, as that is what, all else excepted, "saves" you? You've written that religions that focus on works are "false," and that grace is the sole reason for salvation.

So it ultimately comes down to whether or not a person believes in Jesus as savior or not, other goodness (Godliness, to you) excepted.

...if I understand you correctly. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is you believe so I don't ask questions of you that aren't germane to your beliefs.

Morey,

Yes, I am claiming that without God there is no good. Now, does it matter if you believe it or not? Not at all. Gravity still exists even if I don't believe in it. So, even if you have a professing atheist, they will still have morality because we have consciences that was given to us by God. Your religion may call it alaya-vijnana although I don't fully understand the term.

>>So it ultimately comes down to whether or not a person believes in Jesus as savior or not, other goodness (Godliness, to you) excepted.

Not at all!! I believed in Jesus for years as a false convert. (James 2:19) The difference is what God says that He will do to save us. Like a gift given to us we have to open it to receive it. First, we must first repent (turn away) from sinning, simply as an understanding how wretched and broken and corrupt that we really are compared to a perfect and loving God. Second, we have to trust Jesus that He did do what He did in sacrifice to save us and trust Him with our lives and our Salvation. If you do that, at that moment and for eternity, you are saved by Christ and you will spend eternity in Heaven. Fight it, deny it, and reject it then there is no other avenue but Hell.

>> I'm avoiding it because theism makes close to zero sense to me and because theistic religions in general strike me as profoundly unfair should they happen to be true.

Ray says that its a legal transaction. You have violated the law (God's Law) and Jesus has paid your fine in full.

Its not just a belief, its an understanding of ourselves and a release of ourselves to Him. Because we are separate from God in sin.

Someone else over at "To The Ends" put it nicely this way "This way back to God is not just a legal transaction, but results in an inner spiritual awakening described as a "new birth" or being "born from above" (John 3:3). This is a personal, spiritual transformation in which inner emptiness and death is replaced by new life, and "all things have become new" (2 Cor. 5:17) The key to accepting this new life is accepting Jesus himself, accepting his resurrection and his claims to be God, and then submitting yourself to his absolute authority as God over your life."You cannot reason out of Christianity if Jesus Christ is Lord of your reasoning.

On Religions

Moshe over at carm.org said to me in the past, "That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation...

A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.

...We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to Gtod thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by [Jesus Christ]. The false religions make themselves clean."

In reference to Hell

>>because you clearly believe that this (Hell) is all not only fair, but just and merciful. Or unfair, but not to us. We're the recipients of your God's unfairness to himself...which I'm trying to make sense of.

Yes its fair. Is it fair to punish the violator of a law? Should the punishment fit the crime? If you see in the newspaper a man getting a small $20.00 fine for an infraction you would assume that the infraction was petty or small. When you find out the fine was for raping and murdering 10 woman in cold blood you would be outraged, as we all would be.

Why is that? Sin is always directly against God. GotQuestions.org puts it this way, "God is an eternal and infinite Being (Psalm 90:2). As a result, all sin requires an eternal punishment. God’s holy, perfect, and infinite character has been offended by our sin. Although to our finite minds our sin is limited in time, to God—who is outside of time—the sin He hates goes on and on. Our sin is eternally before Him and must be eternally punished in order to satisfy His holy justice."

I believe a sinner, without being forgiven of sins, cannot be in the presence of God because he/she would burst into flames (Genesis 32:30). God is perfect so we must be perfect to be in His presence. Without the mediator we would perish (1 Timothy 2:5). Look what happened to Saul (now Paul) he was blinded by God's holy presence of light.

The rich man is a good example of someone that understands the gravity of sinning against God and going to Hell. God loves us (John 3:16) and wants us to be saved from Hell (2 Peter 3:9).

bit.ly/whyJesus

90 comments:

"GotQuestions.org puts it this way, "God is an eternal and infinite Being (Psalm 90:2). As a result, all sin requires an eternal punishment....Our sin is eternally before Him and must be eternally punished in order to satisfy His holy justice.""

So it seems to me the fact that what is considered a sin can and has changed to negate this idea.Back in the old testament, God lays down the Laws of Leviticus, but then later forms a new covenant using Jesus, such that we're no longer beholden to them. But the thing is, if God is outside time, then whether the act was done now or 1000 years ago shouldn't matter to him. But since what is a sin has changed, that argument doesn't seem to hold as well, since clearly God is no longer offended by some actions, though presumably any of those sinners from back then are still in hell. (Of course I've made the assumption you don't follow those laws).

"We have seen in the past that many are not seeking answers but seek the argument. There is a difference." Not as much as you might like to think. If I am seeking the true answer to a question, I need a way to be able to recognize and discard false answers. Now, it seems to me that, if you are afraid to answer questions when you think those answers might be challenged, you don't have any real confidence in your answers. "Is it fair to punish the violator of a law?" That depends on many things not least of which is whether the law, itself, is fair. "Should the punishment fit the crime?" That brings an interesting point. Suppose you found that someone was sentenced to 50 years of agonizing torture. You would probably think that they had done something particularly severe to warrant such a punishment. But then you find out that the crime was jaywalking when there was no traffic for miles. The excuse, I mean explanation, for this harsh punishment was that the local king happened to see it and was offended, and because the king is so important, it magnifies what would otherwise be considered a trivial crime. Now, if I had reason to believe that happened, I would be outraged at the sheer mockery of justice created by such a self-important king. And yet, your god, if he exists, is just like that king. The severity of a crime is not based on whether someone (however important he thinks he is) is offended. It is based on how it harms people. Your god who supposedly replays people's "sins" over and over so so he has to keep punishing afresh is a monster. In the example you gave of a lie, he isn't even the one wronged -- even if he does use it as an excuse to take offense.

>>If [G]od wants us to be "saved from hell" then why did he create it?

What you are really asking is "Why have a legal system at all?" Right? Do you suggest that child molesters should roam free? What is Law without justice? Talk about tipping the scales of justice. I am sure Atheists want to be set free, for their crimes, but an unjust universe is not a goal here. This is a universe of laws.

Wasn't it William Blackstone who said that it would be better to release 100 guilty people then to imprison one innocent person?

That If

(1) punishing an innocent person for a given crime is as bad as committing that crime against an innocent person, and

(2) failing to punish the guilty is as bad as committing his crime against an innocent person, Then

(3) failing to punish the guilty is as bad as punishing an innocent person.

I have a great idea to expand your reasoning: Why don't you let child molesters and murderers a get out of hell free card by letting them accept Christ on their deathbeds. I understand that there are a lot of people looking forward to meeting Bundy in heaven because he is now a brother in Christ. I mean, surely this the bibles type of legal system.

Do you really believe God can be duped? Or are you saying this into a mirror? Christ is the ONE who calls His to Him. You cannot seek Him, without Him. So do child molester get saved? Of course. Do you have any evidence of Buddy's salvation? I don't recall any at all, but I would rejoice in God's glory for saving wretches like him, and me.

But you're still appealing to a moral law, or standard, to protest such things. That standard is still outside of your worldview to make such claims. You're still inconsistent.

>>Back in the old testament, God lays down the Laws of Leviticus, but then later forms a new covenant using Jesus, such that we're no longer beholden to them.

That is just it, we are still beholden to them. God's Word says that clearly. God gave us a system of Laws to educate people about sin and the damages sin causes plus to run a nation with. This is a teaching earth after all. (Romans 3:19) I believe, because of our stubbornness, He gave us a chance to obey the Laws to gain back eternal salvation themselves. What did we do with that chance? We denied God (Jeremiah 2:13).

When we thought it was impossible, or refused, He came to us to show us how to be sinless, by example, and to save us eternally by doing so. Remember the 4 minute mile was an impossibility at one point...until Roger Bannister, now its the standard. Now, just in my arrogance I simplified God, but I hope you get the point. Also, God chose things to happen in order that they He had to have happen. Being that only an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being could make such a radical call as to when things should happen.

You are confused to think that God tried some things, and then failed, and tried something else. That is a gross misunderstanding. I have done some posts about it maybe you should review them. First is called Shadowy Prophecies to show how it was to show His revealed plan came to fruition, and the second is called Christ’s New Covenant Church Kingdom that may help explain the new Priesthood and the reasons behind not needing some of the 600+ laws.

>> If I am seeking the true answer to a question, I need a way to be able to recognize and discard false answers. Now, it seems to me that, if you are afraid to answer questions when you think those answers might be challenged, you don't have any real confidence in your answers.

For your benifit I changed from "the argument" to "an argument". What I meant, and thought I was clear, is that instead of inquiring many sought to merely argue their points. I am fully confident, meh at times, to answer questions. I am completely comfortable to argue out my logic, and to state my case, so to speak.

>>That depends on many things not least of which is whether the law, itself, is fair.

I hope this doesn't become a discussion of Relativism or Utilitarianism. Where civil disobedience may be necessary for a fallible system that man creates, God does not and cannot create unfair Laws. Remember the prisons are filled with professing innocent people" It is merely a relative viewpoint though.

>>The excuse, I mean explanation, for this harsh punishment was that the local king happened to see it and was offended, and because the king is so important, it magnifies what would otherwise be considered a trivial crime. Now, if I had reason to believe that happened, I would be outraged at the sheer mockery of justice created by such a self-important king.

And I would be right next to you in such a case. That would be an outrage that deserves civil unrest. Are you claiming that God is fallible? Because that is what the subject here is. Thank God we don't have a democracy, huh? People can be very cruel.

>> And yet, your [G]od, if he exists, is just like that king.

Bzzt, wrong. I knew you were going there but you are comparing apples to pond scum.

>>The severity of a crime is not based on whether someone (however important he thinks he is) is offended. It is based on how it harms people.

You invoke a harm principle now? You must be a Mill fan. So if you violate, or harm, an eternal being, how severe should that punishment be?

So are you saying that you are morally accountable to your government; Your parents; Bosses? If so, why?For the sake of us all getting along and keeping society going, for one.

For another, there's a little thing called "empathy", something that even some animals have.

Why morally accountable? Are you confusing moral accountability with Social responsibility?

Is it immoral to try to get along within society and to try to make it work and last?

If you didn't believe in your god would you not care at all about trying to get along in society?

It looks to me like you're just looking for reasons to justify in your own little mind the idea that since atheists don't believe in any "sky daddy" up there to tell us "right from wrong" that we have no moral basis whatsoever.

If we as you said:... have consciences that was given to us by God. (leaving aside the fact that you've just assumed God here, and haven't proven god...) you have to explain just why the moral conduct of so many cultures are so different.

If you use "The Fall of Eden" excuse, you're left trying to explain just why anyone has a "moral conscience" at all. Either we all fell or we didn't.

The fact that morality is something that humanity has to work at to define and live by does not mean that we lack a reason to treat each other properly.

We do, it's just not your god. You can change definitions and handwave away all you want in order to pretend that atheists have no reason to act morally. It's not honest for you to do so, but as was recently seen, despite your post against lying, you don't seem to have much of a problem with it when you xians do it.

Look at your own bible, especially the OT and the fact that you, like all christians say that we don't have to obey most of those laws anymore.

Times change, morality changes. It's all situational ethics. You just don't want to admit it.

Damn it, you are taking lessons from Comfort.

Ray says that its a legal transaction. You have violated the law (God's Law) and Jesus has paid your fine in full. Paid our fines in full? Baloney! If that was the case, he'd still be in hell! Just like it's supposed to be with us! As I said in a previous comment, Christ had a bad weekend for your sins.

Then there was your replies after that.

Then there's this:Someone else over at "To The Ends" put it nicely this way "This way back to God is not just a legal transaction, but results in an inner spiritual awakening described as a "new birth" or being "born from above" (John 3:3). This is a personal, spiritual transformation in which inner emptiness and death is replaced by new life, and "all things have become new" (2 Cor. 5:17)

But you people keep right on sinning, just like the rest of us. Only thing is, you now feel more guilty about it and either ask "forgiveness" more.

It wouldn't be so bad if you people didn't so often use your religion as a club against others ("liberals", gays, unbelievers, Jews, etc)

Then there's your opposition to many branches of science because they contradict your bronze-age holy book.

Paid our fines in full? Baloney! If that was the case, he'd still be in hell! Just like it's supposed to be with us! As I said in a previous comment, Christ had a bad weekend for your sins.

I agree on this one. These sins he allegedly paid for will result in "eternal" punishment as Ray C is fond of telling us.

So a bad weekend is not even close to payment. Besides, this Jesus is supposed to be a god, so he should be able to take it. If he was hung up every three days, that might come close to paying such a terrible fine.

So your god is incompetent and his son is a sissy. Really makes me want to follow...

I submit that there is, in fact good without God, especially since there is, in fact good with no evidnce for your claimed supernatural power.

Let's start at the beginning.

after Hebrews (Gileads) defeated the tribe of Ephraim (around 1370–1070 BC), the surviving Ephraimites tried to cross the Jordan River back into their home territory. Of course the Hebrews who had a taste for genocide were not about to let that happen. So they set up a guard at the river Jordan crossing. In order to identify and kill these refugees, the Gileadites put each refugee to a simple test:

"Gilead then cut Ephraim off from the fords of the Jordan, and whenever Ephraimite fugitives said, 'Let me cross,' the men of Gilead would ask, 'Are you an Ephraimite?' If he said, 'No,' they then said, 'Very well, say "Shibboleth." If anyone said, "Sibboleth", because he could not pronounce it, then they would seize him and kill him by the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites fell on this occasion." —Judges 12:5-6, NJB

And that is why to this very day, a Shibboleth is any distinct or idiosyncratic custom that indicates a person's social or regional origin.It usually refers to features of language, and particularly to distict pronounciations of words.

(In George Stimpson's book," A Book about a Thousand Things," Stimpson notes that, "in the war, Japanese spies would often approach checkpoints posing as American or Filipino military personnel. A shibboleth such as "lollapalooza" would be used by the sentry, who, if the first two syllables come back as rorra, would "open fire without waiting to hear the remainder".)

Religion perpetuates those ancient and draconian pejudices against people "who are not like" the member of their particular religion.

Christian fundamentalists do not believe that Allah is their God, yet Muslims will kill the Christian, or anyone else, for even drawing a picture of Allah. Of course they are in their right to do this because of the commandment, "thou shalt not make graven images."

Religion always wants to control others. Religion, if fact, is the least tolerant of all social customs.

Religionists like to claim that people are born as sinners, yet they are not. People are born empathizers. If you go into a nursery you will find that when one baby cries, many of the other babies cry.Take a kid at the age just before they start talking and put them in a situation where their mother cries, or pretends to cry. The baby will hug and comfort the mother, or anyone else actually, and possibly cry with them.

Only religion teaches kids that empathizing with "the enemy" is wrong, thereby perpetuating bigotry.

There is a natural reason for empathy- it is softwired in our brains through evolutionary processes.The organ that generates empathy is your brain.When people are hooked up to an MRI, and another person is in the room enjoying a chocolate bar, the Mirror Neurons in the observers brain light up like a christmas tree. The observer (the one on the MRI) senses and enjoys the fact that the other person is enjoying themselves.

The same thing happens when the person on the MRI observes another person being threatened; they are moved to action by the processes of their brain, not learned morality.We are soft wired for sociability and attachment- to belong.

Religion is the launch pad for hate and bigotry. It TEACHES kids that other people are BAD, and DIFFERENT.

I currently correspond with people of eleven different countries of the world, and one in Iran.

The internet is slowly but surely breaking down the barriers to our natural empathy. This will continue. It cannot be stopped, just as the invention of the printing press brought truth to the world.

I want to close with a proof that empathy is a totally natural and evolutionary process:

There can be No empathy in a supposed heaven because there would be no suffering and thus no morality.

In the end, all we have is each other.

Have a great and wonderful day, and please go be nice to someone that is different than you. You will be richly rewarded, there, and then.

>>Dan. I'm asking why God created "his plan" with the possibility that some humans will face an eternal punishment for a temporal infraction. That isn't justice.

O'rly? Bear with me then, this may get rough. So if someone were to rape your child it would be just a temporal infraction. Why bother persecuting them? Temporary harm, right? Or would that child be devastated? So much so that her/his life is self destructive and self debasing to the point of suicide. Would that merely be a temporal infraction? You lose a child forever mind, body, and soul. Still a temporal infraction? Would you seek justice? Within an atheistic worldview there is no justice for the one that raped unless there is that slight chance they get caught. What if that person never gets caught and does it again, and again? Still no justice within that Atheistic worldview. That is an unjust universe they are trying to sign up for. These are the same people, at least a majority, that are legislating that we should get rid of firearms to protect our own families. Again they want rapists to go free and they want no one to defend themselves and others from harm. Justice? Or Just asses? (makes a joke while discussing the raping of children, hard to pull off) God is Justice and righteous to boot.

People cannot be righteous. I know I cannot. If I caught someone raping my child, when I was an Atheist, I would have probably duct taped the guy down and proceed to peel and salt him. Of course I would foam and pad the room to keep the screams and cries down to an acceptable level. I would bring him back to health so I can do it all over again, for weeks or months. I would get medieval on him. Marcellus would be an alter boy in comparison. Whoa, sorry I blacked out for a moment there. (Pulp Fiction reference points awarded )

You get the picture. :7)

Today I would not. I know that this universe has justice and I can calm down and know that God is going to do the right thing. Where is the justice in an atheistic universe, and is it flawless?

Making believe there will be justice in an imaginary afterlife (funded by the Roman Empire as a new tactic in the fourth century to gain power) will not make it true. You can't rely on these dieties that our ancestors have created to get them through the night. We as a people have to make sure that justice is served. Believing in a better world doesn't get anything done when this world is in complete turmoil. The reality is that things won't happen unless you make them happen, and if you want more rapists to get caught, you should come up with an idea, send it to your representative, and if it doesn't work petition it or run for office yourself. But don't write an entire post about how you're fed up with atheists for not believing that the world (or existence in general) is perfectly formulated for fairness, when that itself is nothing more than a beautiful lie. You wouldn't believe in death if it wasn't all around us.

By the way, no one's trying to take your guns, we just want the much-needed regulation of it to keep it out of abusive hands. You're literally more likely to kill yourself or a family member with that gun than an intruder anyway.

So are you saying that you are morally accountable to your government; Your parents; Bosses? If so, why?

>>For the sake of us all getting along and keeping society going, for one.

>>For another, there's a little thing called "empathy", something that even some animals have.

So does every Atheist hold this view? I have seen Richard Dawkins foam at the mouth screaming that we Christians should be imprisoned for child abuse. Is that Justice? Is Dawkins, in your opinion, empathetic?

>>Look at your own bible, especially the OT and the fact that you, like all [C]hristians say that we don't have to obey most of those laws anymore. Times change, morality changes. It's all situational ethics. You just don't want to admit it.

You pick, are you being A) dishonest or B) disingenuous?

You know full well about the OT and the Laws. I have even pointed them out many times (tinyurl.com/cncck). Times change indeed but morality NEVER does or will. Dare I say, and you know it!

>>Paid our fines in full? Baloney! If that was the case, he'd still be in hell! Just like it's supposed to be with us! As I said in a previous comment, Christ had a bad weekend for your sins.

Do you see your hypocrisy yet? Do you? You want fierce justice for Christ, don't you? Would it be fair to say that he get tortured for all of eternity for your sins? But then how unfair it is to punish your for eternity for you rejecting grace, assistance, rehabilitation, justice, *cough God. You cannot have it both ways dude.

Also, and this is Howard Huge, you are revealing your injustice. You want to punish an innocent Man eternally, or at least a greater length of time, for a crime He did not commit. That is your view of justice???

Do you agree with the statement that, it would be better to release 100 guilty people then to imprison one innocent person?

If so why? If not, why not?

Be careful here. Your morality is going to be public.

>>But you people keep right on sinning, just like the rest of us. Only thing is, you now feel more guilty about it and either ask "forgiveness" more.

Yes, and don't you agree that is a more healthy way? Next question: Which is better denial or admitting, fallibility? Prideful or Humble? ...

>>It wouldn't be so bad if you people didn't so often use your religion as a club against others ("liberals", gays, unbelievers, Jews, etc)

OK we agree on that one. Polarization goes both ways though. Ask yourself why are people liberal, gay, not believers, anti-Christian, drunks, drug addicts, secularists, abortionists? Are they against God and the people that stands with God? It is your group of Dawkinists that scream discourse and have utter disdainment(sic) for a group. They don't call it 'angry atheists' for nothing. Don't y'all have a hymnal filled with songs like "religious freedom for all!!" and the popular "We answer to no one"? Didn't y'all also have a lobbying group that seeks to disrespect religion, called "Freedom From Religion"? Please don't act so innocent next time.

>>Then there's your opposition to many branches of science because they contradict your bronze-age holy book.

The problem here, Dan, is that god is the supposed author of history. Therefore, we have no free will. We are merely pawns in his sycophant game. Can there be culpability without free will? I think not.

I think the question "Why Believe Jesus?" is a bit off. More to the point would be, "Why do so-called believers don't believe Jesus?" This is particularly a problem for all those who say there is a Hell because, the only way to hold to this heinous concept is to reject EVERYTHING Jesus, in fact, did tell us about God.

I've actually written an entire book on this topic--Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell, (for anyone interested, you can get a free ecopy of Did Jesus Believe in Hell?, one of the most compelling chapters in my book at www.thereisnohell.com), but if I may, let me share just one of the many points I make in it to explain why.

If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.

So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!

>>I think the question "Why Believe Jesus?" is a bit off. More to the point would be, "Why do so-called believers don't believe Jesus?"

Alright a scrapper! Please continue.

>>This is particularly a problem for all those who say there is a Hell...

Um, you mean like the Word of God, Jesus, or the Apostles? How about the 54 times that particular word it is referenced? There are other terms for Hell in the Bible also. The Bible describes Hell as unquenchable fire,(Mark 9:43) outer darkness,(Matthew 22:13) a furnace of fire and a place where people wail and gnash their teeth,(Matthew 13:42) and a lake of fire.(Revelation 20:15) where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,(Mark 9:48) and where people are in agony in flames.(Luke 16:24)

Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing Hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)

I digress, please go on.

>> the only way to hold to this heinous concept is to reject EVERYTHING Jesus, in fact, did tell us about God.

Is this a bare assertion? Evidence of that please.

>>I've actually written an entire book on this topic...

Ooo...If your going to plug you book here you could, at the very least, offer me a free copy to review for all this advertising. Promo fees paid, are a courtesy to the promoter.

>>(for anyone interested, you can get a free ecopy of Did Jesus Believe in Hell?, one of the most compelling chapters in my book at www.thereisnohell.com)

Ah, spoke too soon. So you are a courteous fellow. :7)

>>If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell.

OK I will bite. I will take this as a challenge and do a post about it. Its a date (read debate) then?

Obviously for the resolution of "Hell?", I will be on the side that supports the resolution as affirmative.

My terms: I will read your book and counter your points. If debunked, you will publicly admit to the fact that you were breaking the 2nd commandment and creating a god to suite you yourself here at this blog. That you need to privately repent of your ways. And take, and give to me, a picture wearing my t-shirt. It will say "I was debunked at Debunking Atheists" Then you must continue to seek Jesus and His Word and get to know Him.

Give me one good reason why I should trust the bible. What makes it more special than Paganism or Buddhism? Why should I believe any of that dogma anyway when historians (even at a highschool level) can prove that religions branched off of each other throughout history just like languages? Why should I trust any of that ridiculous dogma when it was all written by mankind? Do some digging through caves in the eastern hemisphere and you'll find human-like fossils that look more and more ape-like as you dig into older layers. You'd have to be in extreme denial or really stupid to deny that these fossils were in any way related when scientists have observed naturally-occurring mutations and even farmers have in a way recreated evolution through artificial selection, (the only reason dogs exist) which can branch off the same way. Please find the verse in the bible that tells us about when God made Australopithecus, or Homo heidelbergensis. Oh that's right, Christianity was invented way before we knew about any of that.

Because it's not false, like those religions. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation.

His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions make themselves clean. Which is absurd.

>>Why should I believe any of that dogma anyway when historians (even at a highschool level) can prove that religions branched off of each other throughout history just like languages?

Tower of Babel, yes, we agree.

>>Why should I trust any of that ridiculous dogma when it was all written by mankind?

All? How are you certain of that? Strawman though, as Scripture was written by God, and merely penned by man. Do you even concede that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

>>Do some digging through caves in the eastern hemisphere and you'll find human-like fossils that look more and more ape-like as you dig into older layers.

Simply because your position demands that the data fit your worldview,...

"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~ bit.ly/stillevidence

>>You'd have to be in extreme denial or really stupid to deny that these fossils were in any way related when scientists have observed naturally-occurring mutations ...

Is it possible that secular scientists get things wrong? If not, why not?

>>and even farmers have in a way recreated evolution through artificial selection, (the only reason dogs exist) which can branch off the same way.

We all agree that family of wolves can create various dog varieties of shapes, colored coats, and sizes. Just like people. But that is NOT what evolutionists are claiming, and you know it. You pond scum. :)

>>Please find the verse in the bible that tells us about when God made Australopithecus, or Homo heidelbergensis.

As I have said before, you cannot fault the Bible for modern speciation and classifications. argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Dan,You speak of the bible like it is some kind of authority, which it is not.It is merely a cultural arifact, just like all the other thoudsands of ancent writing that are available to read.All the bible does is open a window on the minds of ancient superstitious pre-scientific people.

"God does not and cannot create unfair [l]aws." Well, clearly, if he is fictitious he cannot create any laws, unfair or otherwise. If he is real, then we can determine whether his laws are unfair only by scrutinizing them. I think that we can all agree that any laws that vary the considered severity of an action based on the status of the one supposedly harmed are automatically unfair. So, if you say anything like "what is a fit punishment for offending an omnipotent being?" it will be taken as an automatic concession that your god's laws are unfair. "Remember the prisons are filled with professing innocent people." And there are also people who prove their innocence after spending some time in prison. It stands to reason that there exist people who are incarcerated that are innocent but just couldn't prove it. However, that only speaks to the inaccuracy of the legal system. It does not determine whether the laws themselves are fair. "And I would be right next to you in such a case. That would be an outrage that deserves civil unrest. Are you claiming that God is fallible?" Basing laws on their offense to one's self is an example of fallibility. Interestingly, while you say you would be standing right next to me, your arguments have the distinct flavor of "whatever you say, your majesty; you are infallible." "Bzzt, wrong. I knew you were going there but you are comparing apples to pond scum." Nope, I am comparing equals. Please note that you give no examples of how your god's supposed actions differ from those of the hypothetical king. You just claim that it's okay for your god to commit those wicked deeds because he is "infallible." No, an action is just as wrong for an infallible being as it is for a fallible one. An infallible being is simply one that will not make the mistake. "You invoke a harm principle now? You must be a Mill fan. So if you violate, or harm, an eternal being, how severe should that punishment be?" He has his points. And I note that you have invoked the status of eternality of the "victim" (a being as powerful as you claim your god to be could not be harmed) to call for a more severe punishment. That is an effective concession that your god's laws are unjust.

Even if I ignore that stupid bigoted generalization of yours (I could and WILL just as easily lump religious people in with pedophiles, both catholic and non-catholic!) it does not mean that drug addicts for example, are deliberately giving god the finger. Good grief, Dan.

Are they against God and the people that stands with God?

No, most of the people from those groups likely don't believe and don't care. It's only the outright anti-theists that you can say that about, and it's mostly because they've had to put up with people who are using the nations laws to push their religious views on others all the time.

It is your group of Dawkinists that scream discourse and have utter disdainment(sic) for a group. They don't call it 'angry atheists' for nothing.

Yes, you people, not "they" do call us "angry atheists" for nothing: You people call us all sorts of things, and blame all sorts of societal ills on us.

Read Dan Lietha's Creationwise and AfterEden cartooons.

Calling us "angry atheists" is just another insult you people use. Of course, the effect is to eventually tick us off enough so's the believer can say: "Look, I was right! They are angry!"

Kind of like the guy who says that a dog is vicious and keeps kicking it until it bites, then he says that he was right!

You want to see who's really "angry"? Look at any non-creationist edited footage of Dawkins speaking.

If you ever bother, go and compare him to your average run-of-the-mill ranting tv preacher. Who does the more yelling? Who seems the more pissed off?

Now, you go with this:Don't y'all have a hymnal filled with songs like "religious freedom for all!!"...

What's so bad about that? Oh right...only your religion is the proper one.

That explains all the "peaceful debates" christianity and other religions have had throught history while the different branches of atheism have always been at war over the right way to NOT worship any god!

...and the popular "We answer to no one"? Didn't y'all also have a lobbying group that seeks to disrespect religion, called "Freedom From Religion"? Please don't act so innocent next time.

From that site:The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.

Please don't act so dishonest next time.

Again you pick, are you being A) dishonest or B) disingenuous?

Science is not the problem, secular scientists are. Intentional misinterpretation of evidence is. Asserted paradigms are. Blinders are.Dan: I've posted many times before that the people who came up with the idea for an old earth and evolution all used to be YEC's like you.

It was the physical evidence around them that forced them to change their minds. That was why, I had said, that Henry Morris first instituted the oaths of faith that you people take whenever anyone joins any YEC outfit.

So no, Dan. It's NOT "secular scientists" who are the problem: It's the physical evidence. Deal with it.

So, are you being dishonest or are you just a bullshit artist?

The only people who disagree are those who have taken one or the other of those oaths of faith in one of those creationist organizations.

You want to talk about "blinders"? Go right ahead.

As I've said before: Read The Creationists by Ronald Numbers to learn about this.

Ok, that's about as much of this shit that I can stomach. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

"So, even if you have a professing atheist, they will still have morality because we have consciences that was given to us by God."

Then why does this sound like the pinnacle of evil to me:

"Why is that? Sin is always directly against God. GotQuestions.org puts it this way, "God is an eternal and infinite Being (Psalm 90:2). As a result, all sin requires an eternal punishment. God’s holy, perfect, and infinite character has been offended by our sin. Although to our finite minds our sin is limited in time, to God—who is outside of time—the sin He hates goes on and on. Our sin is eternally before Him and must be eternally punished in order to satisfy His holy justice."

I literally cannot imagine anything that is more unjust or vile than hell. It is a sickening thought, but the conscience that tells me so was given to by the being that thinks this is just? If my understanding of right and wrong was given to me by a god, it can't have been your god. Sorry.

"People cannot be righteous. I know I cannot. If I caught someone raping my child, when I was an Atheist, I would have probably duct taped the guy down and proceed to peel and salt him. Of course I would foam and pad the room to keep the screams and cries down to an acceptable level. I would bring him back to health so I can do it all over again, for weeks or months. I would get medieval on him. Marcellus would be an alter boy in comparison. Whoa, sorry I blacked out for a moment there. (Pulp Fiction reference points awarded )

You get the picture. :7)

Today I would not. I know that this universe has justice and I can calm down and know that God is going to do the right thing. Where is the justice in an atheistic universe, and is it flawless?"

You often tell us that it's not too late and that we can still be saved, etc...

I'm just wondering if a child rapist can be saved or not? If they truly repent and accept Jesus and all that, can they also go to Heaven? If so, surely you would get no justice for your child being raped.

>> That was why, I had said, that Henry Morris first instituted the oaths of faith that you people take whenever anyone joins any YEC outfit.

Secular scientists have an oath too hypocrite! What do you think Metaphysical naturalism is, dude? Its an oath that pigeon hole themselves into "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature." So please spare us all the finger pointing.

>>Besides, Dan: if the [B]ible keeps making the claim that "[C]hrist" paid the full penalty for our sins, then what else would you expect?

Respect, thankfulness, and gratefulness at the very least.

>>How can three days cover it, Dan? How?

Don't you get it yet? An innocent man was (insert footage from Passion movie) for your sins. An innocent man stepped up and took one for the whole team. He never did anything wrong and yet He was punished for everyone's sins. What if you were beaten for every one of Ted Haggard's sins; For all of Ted Bundy's sins; All of those pedophiles sins; All of ours? Every lustful thought and every lie from the planet? Would that be fair to torture you, at length, for days?

I hope you can grasp the concept that an innocent man was beaten for no offense what so ever and He did it gladly to save you.

>>I'm just wondering if a child rapist can be saved or not? If they truly repent and accept Jesus and all that, can they also go to Heaven? If so, surely you would get no justice for your child being raped.

You're right. In this scenario I would depend on my faith which is defined as trust. I trust God to make things right. I have no clue as to how God would do that but I trust God to explain the plan to me that would make it OK to forgive and love that molester and how He will dry all of our tears. That will be a miracle in itself. I can't wait to find out.

>>Besides, Dan: if the [B]ible keeps making the claim that "[C]hrist" paid the full penalty for our sins, then what else would you expect?

Respect, thankfulness, and gratefulness at the very least.

As usual, the point has completely shot over your head.

I'm trying to point out that your own holy book said that christ was to have paid the penalty for our sins. What did he do?

Died on a cross and came back THREE days later!

How do we pay for our own sins? Burn forever in hell.

Which sounds worse, Dan?

How can he have "paid the price" if he suffered so little, if his "payment" was so short?

How can three days cover it, Dan? How?

Don't you get it yet? An innocent man was (insert footage from Passion movie) for your sins. An innocent man stepped up and took one for the whole team.

Yes, he was supposed to be "innocent". Guess what you just did?

You ignored the fact that 3 days does NOT an "eternity of burning make".

Instead you cry about him being "innocent" and how "ungrateful" I am.

Just try, Dan. Just try to compare 3 days to an eternity.

Which is longer? Which has more suffering involved? Which has the higher price paid?

He never did anything wrong and yet He was punished for everyone's sins.

Read that last part again: punished for everyone's sins.

So if he was, why is it that we go to hell to burn forever for our sins, but when he pays it, it was a bad long weekend?

Besides, his "never having done anything wrong" can be under dispute, but we'll leave that for now.

What if you were beaten for every one of Ted Haggard's sins; For all of Ted Bundy's sins; All of those pedophiles sins; All of ours? Every lustful thought and every lie from the planet? Would that be fair to torture you, at length, for days?

A fuck of a lot better than an eternity of burning!

Now, think: Your scenario would work only if the beatings, etc. were the exact same punishment that those other guys would have gotten. Then you could claim that I "paid for their sins".

If, on the other hand, what I go through is LESS than what they would have gotten, then it would not be "fair" or accurate.

I hope you can grasp the concept that an innocent man was beaten for no offense what so ever and He did it gladly to save you.

I'm hoping that you can grasp the concept that "three days does NOT an eternity make". Just as a rich man paying 5 bucks to pay off the million dollar fine of a poor man does not match up either.

What does that level of ungratefulness deserve? Hell.

What? Because I dare to question an obvious mathematical inequality and you're too much of a sheeple to even dare think?

And you're the one talking earlier about how it's "secular scientists" who bind themselves with oaths and whatnot!

Ericka,"If God wants us to be "saved from hell" then why did he create it?"

If the government does not want people to go to jail then why did they create it?I hope you realise the absurdity of your question, Ericka.

Reynold,You are missing the point.

"You ignored the fact that three days does NOT an 'eternity of burning make'"

The number of days Jesus spent in hell is not important, Reynold. The bottom line is that he did go to hell and suffered on your behalf. If you are greatful for that, you will not spend an eternity in hell. It's simple really.

Given the "tough on crime" rhetoric, I would suggest that the government does want people to go to jail. They don't want a condition of zero crime. One, there would be nothing for them to claim they were being "tough" on. And, two, if they wanted crime reduced, they would work to eliminate the "steal or starve" dilemma some people face. It wouldn't prevent all crime. But I have no doubt it would take a sizeable dent out of it. But here's another consideration. The government doesn't claim that everyone deserves jail. Dan has already conceded (albeit unwittingly) that the biblical system is unjust. "The number of days Jesus spent in hell is not important, Reynold. The bottom line is that he did go to hell and suffered on your behalf. If you are greatful for that, you will not spend an eternity in hell. It's simple really." Actually, it is important. If I am wrong and not just any god, but your god, is real, I would have no problem spending those same 3 days and then being released. Those would be the same conditions. If the conditions are different, then Jesus's trip was only for show.

Pvblivs makes an excellent point about government and prisons, although I fear the situation in America is far, far worse.

Essentially what we call "the government" is the rich and powerful. A certain segment actually p-r-o-f-i-t-s from prisons, and those among the rich and powerful who are not of this subset have every reason to refrain from exposing this obscenity.

These wonderful folks are actually in favor of failing schools, since that leads to more desperation-driven crime, hence more imprisoned people, hence more money for yachts.

- - -

Oh, and BTW, the prophecy was for Jesus to follow the "type" of Jonah, three days and three nights. Depending on which Gospel you read it was really only either 2 and 1/2 days or 1 and 1/2 days.

The Johannine gospel has Jesus on the cross when the others (Synoptics) say he was presenting the Last Supper.

"WHat you just said is "I literally cannot imagine anything that is more unjust or vile than jail." Now does that make sense? Punishment for crimes does not make sense? Really?"

Comparing hell to jail is a gross misunderstanding of how a western justice system works. First of all, the "punishment" is directly proportional to the crime committed. This is obvious to any morally stable person, but apparently not to your God. While giving a disobedient child the same punishment as a rapist is a ridiculous proposition, not only does your god think it's perfectly reasonable, but he thinks the punishment should be an infinity of torment. If this is holiness, I am not impressed. Second, jails aren't in place just to punish the criminal, to enact vengeance for the one who has been wronged. In many countries in Europe, jails are seen more as correctional facilities, where criminals are put in an environment where they can strive to become functional members of society again. Hell, on the other hand, is pointless. It is punishment for the sake of punishment without ever accomplishing anything, other than satisfying your god's "holy" justice.

"Your right, if your god sets free rapist and murderers then we do indeed have different gods. My God is much more righteous and just then yours."

Hmm, maybe my God would try to correct such people. If they were lost causes, he could give them release in oblivion. Or maybe my God simply wouldn't really bother with human morality and left it for ourselves to strive toward justice. Yes, in an atheistic universe, evil often goes unpunished and good unrewarded. But then again, couldn't that motivate us to prevent evil when we see it and reward goodness? In an atheistic universe, justice is not a given. We've got to make it happen ourselves.

>>I'm trying to point out that your own [H]oly book said that [C]hrist was to have paid the penalty for our sins. What did he do?

>>Died on a cross and came back THREE days later!

Yea and all you have to do is say thank you.

>>How do we pay for our own sins? Burn forever in hell.

For being too prideful and not being grateful for such a wonderful gift.

>>Which sounds worse, Dan?

Exactly! Which? You would rather spend eternity in hell forever instead of just being thankful. Pride kills. Man up.

>>Which has the higher price paid?

Jesus!!!!! Don't you get it? An innocent man paid for ALL of your sins and you don't even care or even grateful in the slightest bit.

If you end up in Hell and lest it was you who placed you there and you had the power, your entire life, to get yourself out. But as those criminals in jail say "at least I get three square meals a day and have a roof over my head" You will be where you want to be. My dad said "At least I will be with my friends" I replied "its not Club Med, its Hell, what makes you think there will be a reunion with people you like? Its called Hell for a good reason"

>>While giving a disobedient child the same punishment as a rapist is a ridiculous proposition, not only does your god think it's perfectly reasonable, but he thinks the punishment should be an infinity of torment. If this is holiness, I am not impressed.

I remember saying this many times, and I don't remember where I got it, but it stands true so I hope it helps you understand better.

Lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself.

If I lie to a child, I'll get away with it.If I lie to my wife, I'll be sleeping on the couch.If I lie to a police officer, I'm obstructing justice and I'll go to jail.If I lie to a judge, it's called perjury, and I'll go to prison.If I lie to the government, it can be called treason, and the punishment might be death.

So how much more egregious is a lie to God? Read Revelation 21:8 for the answer.

>>In many countries in Europe, jails are seen more as correctional facilities, where criminals are put in an environment where they can strive to become functional members of society again.

Well OK then think of Hell as "Death Row" awaiting the sentence of capital punishment. Its the green mile.

>>Yes, in an atheistic universe, evil often goes unpunished and good unrewarded.

Thanks for admitting to that.

>>But then again, couldn't that motivate us to prevent evil when we see it and reward goodness?

Like a justice system? Somehow though, Atheists in charge of someones Judgment day doesn't sound better then God for some reason.

>> In an atheistic universe, justice is not a given. We've got to make it happen ourselves.

Like kill religion? If they resist round them up? Yea we have heard all the justifications for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and 45 million unborn and counting, and other atheist regimes.

So how will you fair on your court day? Have you broken any Laws? All of the Laws? God's Law is the schoolmaster to show a sinner where they stand in God's eyes. If we stand alone we will drink from the cup of His wrath for our sinning.

John R. Stott said "We cannot come to Christ to be justified until we have first been to Moses, to be condemned. But once we have gone to Moses, and acknowledged our sin, guilt and condemnation, we must not stay there. We must let Moses send us to Christ."

There is nothing we can do to make it up (Romans 3:20) We are criminals. We need Salvation through Christ. It is the only way.

"Pride kills. Man up." Strictly speaking, taking the path of least resistance is the exact opposite of "manning up." "'How do we pay for our own sins? Burn forever in hell.' "For being too prideful and not being grateful for such a wonderful gift." So, what you're saying is that the "sins" had nothing to do with it anyway. It's a trick to get you to worship the monster who is threatening you with hell. I have posted my own thoughts on this "gift" on my blog (for anyone who is interested.) But a quick summary is that it is a big scam. "'Which has the higher price paid? [Jesus at three days or a normal human with unending torture]' "Jesus!!!!! Don't you get it? An [allegedly] innocent man paid for ALL of your sins..." No, Dan, I don't believe that 3 days is a higher price than eternity, any more than I believe that 2¢ is a higher price than $1,000,000,000. Furthermore, in order to convince me that he was innocent, you must show that it is meaningful. You must reject the notion of "all have sinned." As long as you hold to that, it must apply to Jesus as well.

OK fine you don't have to publicly humiliate yourself by wearing my t-shirt. It was a pseudo joke anyway.

I will read your book someday here soon and I will do my very best to understand you, and your point of view, and the book and say what comes to mind in a post. I cannot say it will be easy for you but it will, at the very least, be the truth.

If I am going to read it though, all I ask is a return in the favor of reading a small book.

Can you please do just that? I will read your recommended book if you read the book I recommend. Fair?

You know what, Pvblivs has pretty much dealt with your last post to me.

Think about it: 3 days versus an eternity. So what if Jesus was "innocent"? Even if he was, he paid a miniscule "price" for the sins of everyone compared to what an individual human "sinner" is supposed to pay for their own "sin".

Look: I actually do appreciate your concern, at least unlike Comfort, you do give the impression that you actually give a shit about us, instead of (just) baiting us, but still, you haven't yet been able to explain how 3 days for an "innocent" man is supposed to be equal to an eternity for a "non-innocent" man.

Who suffers more? The innocent millionare who forks over 20 bucks to pay the 20 billion dollar fine of someone who did some crime, or the guy who legitimately gets stuck with the real bill?

Innocence can't be that much of a factor when you're only talking about 3 lousy days.

Then there are the other reasons why atheists don't believe in Jesus.

Namely, things like failed prophecies.

One example: When he said to a crowd that there will be some standing there who won't die until they see the son of man come in his kingdom with his angels, etc.

All those people are dead. His kingdom and the angels, etc did not come.

I know that apologists try to twist this into him referring to the "transfiguration" but the events are totally different.

If Jesus was referring to the transifuration then he would have said something like: I'm going to meet some old saints on a mountain top in a few weeks. No mention of angels, or kingdom, etc.

I cry foul! You did not give the whole book as a PDF, I was under that impression that it was the entire book. I gave you a link to a whole book in its entirety. If you want me to review your book then you will have to send me a copy or donate the amount of the book to me to purchase it. Otherwise I will either post about what you already wrote or just wait until I find a free copy at a library or somewhere else. Now, publishers have given me copies of their books to review a few times now so it should not be a big deal to you. Just email me and let me know.

I do not see where he asked you to write a review of his book. Nor do I see where he claimed to give a link to the book in its entirety. He explicitly states that he is providing one chapter. Where is the foul? There is one thing that you might object to. Perhaps you don't want him to use your blog as free advertising space for his source of income.

"Well OK then think of Hell as "Death Row" awaiting the sentence of capital punishment. Its the green mile."

Except in hell you don't actually ever get executed and you're being tortured for eternity. I don't see the similarities. It's important to also note that capital punishment is not something people agree is just in the first place. It's banned in many countries and Amnesty International calls it the ultimate denial of human rights. I guess God is above that though.

"Thanks for admitting to that."

Sure. But could you also admit that in your universe, it's perfectly possible for a human rights activist or something who spends his or her life helping others to go to hell and for a rapist to go to heaven? The human rights activist is not a Christian and the rapist converts to Christianity on his deathbed.

"Like kill religion? If they resist round them up? Yea we have heard all the justifications for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and 45 million unborn and counting, and other atheist regimes."

This doesn't really merit a response, but I'll give you one. You don't know me other than from a couple comments on an anynomous internet blog, yet you have no problem jumping to the conclusion that I support the killing of religious people simply because I am an atheist. That is baffling to me. I have no justifications to give for the mass murders committed by those regimes, and I don't see why I'd have to. While Stalin didn't believe in God, he sure as hell didn't believe in secular humanism, freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc etc either. He did not share my world view. Being an atheist shouldn't tell you anything about my positions on things other than the existence of God, and the fact that it seemingly does betrays your black and white outlook. I do not support the killing of innocent people and I do not support government imposed atheism, and if you bothered being intellectually honest, you'd notice that the vast majority of atheists agree with me.

So Dan Because god is eternal and infinite a sin I committed yesterday has already been before him for all time even before I knew I committed it and will stay with him for eternity while I'm burning in hell for an eternity I can't serve because part of eternity has been used up. All this confusion because someone wants me to conform to the rules of some guy called Moses (said he got them from someone else but they benefited his family most)who convinced all the"tribes"they were traveling in a straight line for forty years.A consummate con artist.

>>You don't know me other than from a couple comments on an anynomous internet blog, yet you have no problem jumping to the conclusion that I support the killing of religious people simply because I am an atheist. That is baffling to me.

Maybe not you personally, but atheism sure does not discourage such behavior.

>>Being an atheist shouldn't tell you anything about my positions on things other than the existence of God, and the fact that it seemingly does betrays your black and white outlook.

>>I do not support the killing of innocent people and I do not support government imposed atheism, and if you bothered being intellectually honest, you'd notice that the vast majority of atheists agree with me.

You may not "support government imposed atheism" but your agenda is being pushed into our public school system and governmental agencies. Remember freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Does your worldview give justification to be honorable, honest, or evil? Does it have purpose or reasoning to be "good", or is it limited and subjective? I am sure you do things so your kids and grand kids have a good life but what constitutes a good life? Money? Power? Education? Why?

You don't have a clue, don't you? What that means is that if you're a Protestant, you can't be forced to be Catholic, and vice versa. You can't be made to follow other's religious views.

What you refuse to understand is that, by it's very wording, if you don't have religion at all, you can't be forced to follow the religious beliefs of anyone else. If you are, then by definition, you don't have "freedom of religion" now, don't you?

Because there would be a religion of some sort that people would have to follow.

Like the xian inquisition or the Calvinist purges? After all, your own holy book says that whosoever blasphemes the name of the "lord" shall be put to death.

Where is there any atheist "holy book" any command like that??

Yea we have heard all the justifications for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and 45 million unborn and counting,...

You've obviously forgotten the OT commands where your own god ordered the deaths of pregnant women and children.

Nothing more amusing than a practitioner of an Abrahamic faith pretending to be "pro-life"!

...and other atheist regimes.

Of course, Dan ignores all the religous killings done by christian regimes throughout history as well as peaceful modern secular states like Norway, etc now.

For instance, the Thirty Years War in the German states hundreds of years ago was a religious war.

One fucking THIRD of the population was killed.

Back then there weren't as many people as there was in modern times, so the absolute numbers weren't as impressive as what Stalin racked up, but take that as a percentage of MODERN Germany and you'll get a huge number.

That should tell you something: The reason why "athiest regimes" killed so many people is that there were more people to kill and more efficient methods to kill them than there were in medieval times.

It had nothing to do with any superior morality or restraint by the religious.

"Maybe not you personally, but atheism sure does not discourage such behavior."

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. It does not encourage or discourage any action. It does not contain any set of values and it isn't a worldview. I get my values from elsewhere.

"*definition of atheism from the 16th century*"

That's nice, but the definition I use is this: Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. If you disagree with that definition, then don't call me an atheist and instead call me agnostic or something. I don't see a point in bickering over which label I should use.

"Just keep in mind that there is no such thing as neutrality to a worldview. You have picked a side."

Don't know what this means. I never claimed to be neutral, but simply being an atheist doesn't tell you which "side" I'm on. You could probably find atheists that think religion is a necessary part of a functional society. We don't all think alike.

"Y'all have denominations,"

First time I heard of any of these. These aren't "denominations", that link is some guy lumping atheists into 5 categories. Yes, there are atheists who have different opinions on things. Differing opinions makes atheism into a religion? Lols. Not believing something is not a religion. I suppose you can find atheists who really don't sound much different from religious people, I've seen them, but atheism is not a religion, if we agree that the definition is simply a lack of belief. Maybe you could say humanism is a religion, but I think that's just silly. Then every single philosophy or system of values should be considered a religion. Meh, call it whatever you want. The point is moot anyway.

"y'all organize camps to indoctrinate your philosophy to young children,"

I quote from Camp Quest's website:

"Encourage critical thinking to enable the young people to draw their own conclusions based on good evidence. "

Yeah, sounds nefarious. Not. But of course the above statement is simply a lie and what they really want is to brainwash the kids with atheistic dogmas while they chant to a cardboard cutout of Dawkins. No, wait, that was some other camp...

And who's this nefarious "y'all"? I've never written a book promoting atheism. Some atheists have, because they think religion has a negative impact on society and think the future would be better off if more people lived without religion. That's their opinion and they're allowed to put their thoughts in a book. Oh noes atheists write books, it's clearly a religion. This makes no sense to me. You'd have more of a case if there was a single Holy book of atheism that all atheists believed was inerrant. There isn't. So instead you have to stretch the definition of religion to absurdity to make your point.

I don't agree with all the atheist billboards I've seen, I think I disliked some put out by the Freedrom from religion foundation. But that "Don't believe in God?" billboard is just calling out to atheists who might be alone in a community full of Christians. Atheists are people too, and as such they want to socialize with likeminded people. Shocking, I know.

"You definitely belong to a religion!"

No. And I hope I'm not "arrogant" and "prideful" like we atheists apparently often are when I say that I know what religions I belong to better than you.

"You may not "support government imposed atheism" but your agenda is being pushed into our public school system and governmental agencies."

I don't know what you mean by this. Evolution? If so, your problem is with science, not atheism.

"Remember freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

The freedom of religion oviously includes the freedom from religion if one wishes to not belong to any religion. I don't exactly know what your point is here.

I suppose I value being honorable and honest over being evil. That's got nothing to do with my atheism though, because atheism, by itself, gives justification to nothing. It's a lack of belief in a god or gods. Period. Not believing in a god doesn't tell me anything about how I should act. I get that from elsewhere.

"Does it have purpose or reasoning to be "good", or is it limited and subjective? I am sure you do things so your kids and grand kids have a good life but what constitutes a good life? Money? Power? Education? Why?"

I think being good ultimately is beneficial to myself. I don't want to steal and rape or anything like that. While those things might give some temporary satisfaction(Or I don't know, I'd probably be destroyed by guilt if I ever raped someone), I get far more satisfaction from being a decent person and enjoying my time peacefully with other people. I'm pretty tired atm so I'll just skip the good life stuff. :p Interesting discussion fo sho.

"Plus he decided to erase all my comments on his blog so..." What blog is that? I just checked his profile and didn't find a blog. Don't get me wrong. I don't endorse deleting someone's posts willy-nilly. Though I do sometimes think there are good reasons for deleting posts. But here, you seem to be saying that you were barred from a site that doesn't appear to exist. I don't know. Maybe he took an entire blog down. It seems unlikely; but anything's possible.

So, let me get this straight. Humans are corrupted, sinful creatures in need of salvation. So to attain this salvation, God decides the best way is to torture, beat and have a blood sacrifice of an innocent human being to cleanse the sins.

Ok, so I have a few questions:

1) Why did God create us in such a way that we would be in need of such a drastic act if we were imbued with free will? Why not design us in a way to make it impossible for us to sin if he hates sin so much that he'll torture someone forever for committing just one?

I know, Dan, you're gonna say "he didn't want mindless robots following him" or "he doesn't want to interfere with our free will", but if he is omniscient free will doesn't exist for us anyway, and I wonder why he designs us to be unable to do other acts that aren't sinning.

For example, I really wish I could breathe underwater without an oxygen tank or snorkel, etc. However, due to the way God designed me, I am unable to do so.

Couldn't God have made the act of sinning analogous to breating underwater?

Also, Jesus's "sacrifice" is unnecessary without the concept of Original Sin: a curse. We are unworthy of God simply by being born because of the actions of our two ancestors (when it's impossible for the human race to have sprung from one man and one woman anyway).

So, we're at the point where humanity is corrupted and evil and in need of salvation. Well having salvation means you're being saved, right? Well in this case, the thing we're being saved from is a punishment enacted BY GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Anyway, so we need to be saved from God...by God. Now..God in his INFINITE WISDOM thinks "hmmm I think the only way to grant human's salvation is a blood sacrifice of an innocent human being"

Now, he could have simply granted salvation, written a new book to the bible talking about how "Ok I was gonna do something really bad to all you humans for being as I intentionally designed you, but I've decided that all I care about is that you love me, have faith that I really really really love you..if you believe in me, you're saved"

No torture, beating, crucifying or blood sacrifice needed. But no, God arbitrarily chose a horrific incident as the path to salvation...he sounds pretty sadistic to me.

Annnnnnnnd now my final point. Even if I grant all of this..that God exists, that humans are corrupted through their own faults and are in need of salvation, etc, the Christian God is still immoral and unjust for making an innocent human being pay for the crimes of others. If humans truly owe a "debt" to God, then we should be the one to pay it, not Jesus or God himself.

Here's an analogy. You have two brothers, one is a little bastard and kills people, steals, etc and the other one is a paragon of virtue. Now, the father decides that the best way to amend the situation is to beat the shit out of the good son and then hang him on a cross till he dies..but don't worry..he gives him CPR and brings him back and says to the bad son "Now you see how much I love you? I'm willing to be a brutal sadistic bastard and do that to your brother instead of making you go through it...don't worry, he said it was ok if i did it beforehand"

>>Why not design us in a way to make it impossible for us to sin if he hates sin so much that he'll torture someone forever for committing just one?

So forced love is still love? Do you want to force your child to love you or do you want them to make such a tender choice, to love, themselves? God wants you to love him but you certainly have a choice not to. Atheists have taken this route to show their thanks to God. Its called ungrateful.

>>For example, I really wish I could breathe underwater without an oxygen tank or snorkel, etc. However, due to the way God designed me, I am unable to do so.

Not true, according to your worldview you used to have gills and wanted to breathe air. So which is it? Fickle evolutionist mindset?

>>Couldn't God have made the act of sinning analogous to breating[sic] underwater?

Is breathing underwater bad? Will you drown and die by breathing water? Yes? Same with sin, you will die. God did you a favor.

>> We are unworthy of God simply by being born because of the actions of our two ancestors

You are unworthy because you are sinful and unholy. Have you lied, stolen, blasphemed, and lusted...? How about the 4th Commandment? Have you kept the Sabbath Holy? I don't know if you know this but Christ Himself is our Sabbath Rest. Matthew 11:28-30, Hebrews 4:9-10. Are you honoring the Sabbath? You will be judged by your sins, not Adams.

>>Now, he could have simply granted salvation

To lawbreakers like a corrupt judge would? Really?

>>No torture, beating, crucifying or blood sacrifice needed.

No punishment for crimes at all? So, if a dude raped your sister for weeks and then murdered her, he should be just set free? That is your view justice? I think God has a more accurate view of justice then you do, that is for sure.

>>God arbitrarily chose a horrific incident as the path to salvation...he sounds pretty sadistic to me.

I am sure you have heard that it is better for a thousand guilty people be set free then one innocent man incarcerated. Well...you call this sadistic? Pot meet kettle.

>> If humans truly owe a "debt" to God, then we should be the one to pay it, not Jesus or God himself.

And you will.

As far as your analogy, you got it wrong. Here is a better one:

If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and called the police, and I went to jail, that is justice. Justice is getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, but you did not call the police, and you let me go, that is mercy. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and you not only did not call the police, but you forgave me, and you gave me the bike, that is grace. Grace is getting what you do not deserve.

The reason God is gracious to us, has nothing to do with what is in us. Instead, it has everything to do with what is in God: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) We receive grace because of God's goodness. It is not because we deserve it.

"No punishment for crimes at all? So, if a dude raped your sister for weeks and then murdered her, he should be just set free? That is your view justice? I think God has a more accurate view of justice then you do, that is for sure."

Lot offered his two virgin daughters up to rapists, and yet was a man approved by your god.

Your god, and not Moses, made the decision for the precious little virgin girls of the Midianites to be raped by the same men who slaughtered their fathers, uncles, older brothers, and so on.

Women who had known a man were also slaughtered. Was this done in front of the precious little girl virgins?

Oh, yes, let's not forget the remaining males were slaughtered, without any regard to age. I can just see some precious little girl virgin mourning that she had ever been mean or even harsh to her even more precious little baby brother,

The chapters immediately preceding Numbers 31 show that this was your god's way of solving a problem caused by his own dubious decision, focusing on a small number of people.

Of course certain sites enlighten us that the precious little girl virgins were not raped, but carried off for "household duties."

I'm so relieved!

"... I think God has a more accurate view of justice then you do, that is for sure."

This was years ago conversation, today I would say that you're appealing to a moral law, standard, that an atheistic worldview cannot account for. You're assuming morality, and judging by that objective standard. bit.ly/assmorals

Does it make more sense that a people, the Israelites would react in ignorance to a baffling world and see a deity pulling the strings of what they could not understand, and took self-righteous attitudes toward any people who got in their way (One section of "The Brick Testament" illustrates them slaughtering a peaceful and gentle people, for example) and wrote literature about their triumphs and sins? (Sinning included not slaughtering ENOUGH people in some case!!!)

Or does it make more sense that a personal god not only exists, but led his chosen few into all sorts of situations, being the only ultimate "string puller" including acting in bizarre and HURTFUL ways, when an omipotent, all-knowing being could have always found alternatives, and reneged on mercy for repentant people without recidivism on their part, (in at least one instance)...

-- And then inspired a tome which could not even get geography right, let alone history, customs and laws of the Jews, and science?

I, for some strange reason, choose RATIONALITY as a better choice.

You (and I can only guess the reason) see IRRATIONALITY as far superior.

So, you as a criminal, wishes to judge the Judge? How presumptuous of you.

Knowledge is revealed by God, otherwise temporary opinion and belief. This is exposed with a simple question, how do you know your reasoning is valid without God or being viciously circular?

I am sure you would grant that some people have invalid reasoning. People with invalid reasoning would not know their reasoning is invalid. So how do you know you're not one of them?

Labeling things as rational or irrational, still appeals to objective standards that an atheistic worldview cannot account for, because your worldview cannot account for objective standards. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.

To which Dan responded: "No punishment for crimes at all? So, if a dude raped your sister for weeks and then murdered her, he should be just set free? That is your view justice? I think God has a more accurate view of justice then you do, that is for sure."

As we have already established, according to Dan's view of justice, if the rapist becomes born again and genuinely accepts Jesus, then he still gets to go to heaven and gets away with his rape and murder scott-free.

On the flip-side, an innocent baby born into the wrong faith who dies young will be tortured for eternity in hell.

>>Do you think it is justice for the children if the rapist goes to heaven?

I certainly don't know how it would be, but I trust Him to make that so. Like I said, maybe he would be a servant to the kids he tortured for all of eternity. I have no clue, all I can do is trust until I find out.

Your version of justice is simply 'I think God will do the right thing'. So, in other words, you clearly have no idea what will happen to a rapist that goes to heaven.

Hardly a convincing argument there Dan...

At least here on earth there is actually evidence of rapists and murderers being punished. It's by no means perfect, but there is a at least some justice in a non-religious world. You have exactly zero evidence of heaven or hell even existing, let alone any sort of justice being handed out there.

>>You have exactly zero evidence of heaven or hell even existing, let alone any sort of justice being handed out there.

Again it would be more intellectually honest if you said that the evidence did not convince you instead of saying "You have exactly zero evidence"

Like it or not, God's Word is indeed evidence. Who cares if you accept it or not. I could be intellectually lazy, like yourself, and say that you have zero evidence that rapists and murderers even exist.

"Again it would be more intellectually honest if you said that the evidence did not convince you instead of saying 'You have exactly zero evidence'".

Would it be more accurate (and intellectually honest) to say that you don't like what Islam and Mormonism, and so on, have to say, rather than that they are objectively flawed?

"... Like it or not, God's Word is indeed evidence. Who cares if you accept it or not. I could be intellectually lazy, like yourself, and say that you have zero evidence that rapists and murderers even exist."

HA! Too funny! I was NOT too "intellectually lazy" or defiant or stubborn or anything else to accept the gospel presented to me. I accepted it gladly after pondering it for a while.

Too bad I didn't know then what I knew now. I could have avoided all the unnecessary pain due to the emotional clinging to the worst decision of my life and the YEARS of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY that necessarily followed stubbornly clinging to it!

>>Would it be more accurate (and intellectually honest) to say that you don't like what Islam and Mormonism, and so on, have to say, rather than that they are objectively flawed?

Not at all, because God revealed that Islam and Mormonism are false religions.

Do you even concede that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

>>I accepted it gladly after pondering it for a while...Too bad I didn't know then what I knew now.

Thanks for revealing your source of intellect and reasoning. You see, you cannot reason out of Christianity if Jesus Christ is Lord of your reasoning.

I feel that you were struggling, but you have never known God yet. Your intellect may have reasoned to God, but you were not yet transformed to the new Saving Covenant. Unless there is a new Master in your life, you're still a slave to your current master of sin and autonomy. Remember Eve listened to what God said, and then what Satan said, and used her autonomy to decide what to do. It's the oldest sin in the book.

God does not send people to Hell for being confused or denying what has been revealed to them, but for sin against the God that they do know. Hell's gates will be locked from the inside, as CS Lewis pointed out.

Because you have railed against God, and not have God's will be done, i.e. repent and placing your entire TRUST in Jesus Christ for your Salvation with your heart, mind, and soul, then God will have your will be done and that is separation from Him. We call it despair.

I hope you will come back to what you already know, in that gift of repentance. Psalms 51:17 So we can spend eternity together laughing about these times when we almost blew it. I will hope that is God's will.

>>But please continue to enlighten us.

God already has, I cannot offer anything more. (John 3:30; 1 Corinthians 2:2) You know God exists, it's just at the moment you're denying Him in your idolatrous unrighteousness. If I were you, I would spent my time begging for that precious gift of repentance, instead of lashing out at the ones already saved for eternity.

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." ~Jesus Christ, John 10:28

"I feel that you were struggling, but you have never known God yet. Your intellect may have reasoned to God, but you were not yet transformed to the new Saving Covenant. "

How original!

I don't know why I did not last timeadd something like AND I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY.

Because I DID! Oh, sure maybe not the exact words you would choose, but the gist of it!

In your extremely CHILDISH mind-frame you cannot fathom that your addiction to mental idols is something you can actually OUTGROW. Or should I say RECOVER from?

You see that some have and you can only "decide" that they never were like you or made the same decision you did in the first place. Of course, other apologists for crap before you have said the same thing, so your mind is protected against seeing how silly and ARROGANT your words are!

GROW UP!

"Not at all, because God revealed that Islam and Mormonism are false religions. "

OK silly example. I take back Zeus and Apollo as they are reported to have lived at Mount Olympus, which is an actual place you can visit.

Anyway, my mistake.

But, it does nicely show the difference between real evidence (for Mt Olympus) and Dan's "I read it in a book" version of evidence (for heaven/hell). Its a big help when somewhere actually exists and you can go there and come back to tell people about it.

So there is NO evidence for heaven or hell, just some words in a book. No actual visitations or photos. Unless of course Dan wants to get into an solipsistic debate about anything existing except the observer, which would necessarily mean he is also denying that God exists.

>>Your view of 'evidence for heaven' means there is also evidence for the respective residences of Zeus, Apollo and Harry Potter.

Oh, those books show evidence of being truthful, as a historical narrative, and supernatural also? Please present that evidence, I would like to evaluate it for the claim's validity. You do understand God gave us the ability to reason and to use logic, right?

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Once a scholar decide to ignore the supernatural aspects of the Trojan War story and focus on the natural elements. Taking the geography at face value he found all sorts of archaeological discoveries.

But he didn't go far enough.

If the geography was accurate then Hera, Aphrodite and Athena must be real too...

According to the books, Harry Potter lived in Godric's Hollow with his parents, James and Lily Potter, until the age of one when his parents were killed.

Before he was eleven and during the summer holidays, Harry Potter lived at Number Four, Privet Drive, the home of his Aunt Petunia, Uncle Vernon, and their son Dudley. Privet Drive lies in the village of Little Whinging, which is located in the county of Surrey, near London in the southeast of England.

The rest of the year, Harry stayed at his school, Hogwarts. Hogwarts is the place he actually considered to be home. Hogwarts is located somewhere in Scotland, but exact location is a secret and protected by magic.

After Hogwarts, Harry moved into The House of Black, the home he inherited from his godfather, Sirius Black.

See Dan, just words in a book, which is apparently what you consider to be evidence.

If you dismiss that the above is evidence of Harry Potter's residences being real, and yet still insist that heaven and hell are real, then you must have evidence that heaven and hell exist other than just 'words in a book'...

Please present it.

(Oh and I'm sure you agree that just because a book might be historically accurate in certain parts DOES NOT mean that the rest of the book is automatically true. If not, let me know. That would be fun!)

You also understand you're imposing your view about laws onto me with that statement. How do you KNOW your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?

Back to the question: Man made you mean? Sure I can agree to that.

God made perfect Laws though as everything God does is perfect, good, and righteous.

Also, when you say stealing is wrong you're literally, imposing your views on someone. So the laws that mankind makes is off of a moral standard, or Law, that the Atheist cannot account for. Its an arbitrary position held. They have no "source" as to what is good, or wrong, without borrowing from my worldview to do so.

Say I owned a charity service. Say I directly volunteered in Somalia every year. Say I spread the gospel to 500 people last month. Say I gave the vast majority of my salary to schools in low income neighborhoods. Say I went to church every sunday. Say I was a decon. Say I went on a blind date and told the woman I was 5'10 when I was really 5'9 and a half. I'm going to hell. No mal-intentions, nothing to do anyone any harm, no interfering with someone's life, just one little exaggeration and God is offended at me enough to throw me in hell. You say all sins are equal, no matter how small. Don't lie to yourself and say you can tell your parents you usually work out 6 days a week (I don't care if you work out 5). Don't even try to get a glance of Scarlet Johansen's sideboob, or wear a polyester shirt, don't tell your daughter she's pretty just to boost her self esteem, and the fect that you're rich enough to own a computer (as it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God), means you're probably richer than 95% of the plantet. If you've done any of this and failed to recognize it, then it's settled, you're going to hell. And even though God made her that way, Ellen DeGeneres is going with you for her sexual orientation. Don't try to change your words, because then you'd get yourself into more trouble with the big man for lying. And we all know what that means: an eternity in HELL. So stick with your words; afterall, you said them. And follow them to their fullest. Stone your daughter if she gets knocked up. Murder your son if he curses you. Cut off your wife's hand if she saves your ass from a mugging. And don't feel bad about it, for you are following God's word to its fullest.

Yes, for the sins that you commit. Even though there are sins that are greater than other sins, all sin leads to eternal damnation. Is that "wrong"? If so, how do you KNOW it is? From what STANDARD are you appealing to? Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

>>If you've done any of this and failed to recognize it, then it's settled, you're going to hell.

I certainly agree that we all deserve it. But Christians are not perfect, we're just forgiven. You're assuming that you get to Heaven by your own merits, which is absolutely wrong. As the song goes,...

"I am the king of excusesI've got one for every selfish thing I do

What's going on inside of me?I despise my own behaviorThis only serves to confirm my suspicionsThat I'm still a man in need of a Savior "

>>Stone your daughter if she gets knocked up....

Again, would that be "wrong"? Meister states, "By arguing for a belief in or knowledge of morality without providing a justification for morality, atheists confuse moral epistemology (moral knowledge) with moral ontology (foundation existence of morality)." ~bit.ly/assmorals

Plus, you are absolutely misunderstanding the difference between the two covenants. Sure, you will be in front of God under Adam's covenant, or the second Adam's (Jesus), it is certainly your choice which one. I begged to be selected and be born again in the covenant of Jesus Christ. You?

Inspiration

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan----"A great many of those who debunk traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process." ~C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1944)----"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon----”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” ~Martin Luther----”Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed.” ~Paul Manata----Until the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner and brings him to repentance, his presuppositions will remain unaltered. And as long as the unbeliever's presuppositions are unchanged a proper acceptance and understanding of the good news of Christ's historical resurrection will be impossible. ~Dr. Bahnsen----“One of the most pernicious falsehoods ever to be almost universally accepted is that the scientific method is the only reliable way to truth” ~Professor Richard H. Bube, Stanford University----Rules of atheism"Science":

Theists will consider natural causes.Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Theism posits an eternal mind followed by contingent matter.

Atheism posits matter followed by contingent minds.----"Evolution is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their brainwaves" ~Bevets

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end" ~I. L. Cohen----from City of Angels

Seth: You're an excellent doctor.Maggie: How do you know?Seth: I have a feeling.Maggie: That's pretty flimsy evidence.Seth: Close your eyes. It's just for a moment.[touches her hand]Seth: What am I doing?Maggie: You're... touching me.Seth: Touch. How do you know?Maggie: Because, I feel it.Seth: You should trust that. You don't trust it enough.

"Ask the poor. They will tell you who the Christians are." ~Mahatma Gandhi

"Some want to live within the sound of church or chapel bells, I want to run a rescue shop within the yard of hell." ~C.T. Studd

"You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." ~C.S. Lewis

"Waiting is not wasting when you are waiting on the Lord. God works while we wait." ~unknown

"Since the bible defines a Christian as one who knows God, would you consider yourself to have been a Christian according to the biblical definition?" ~Thomas Bridges

Fun Quotes

Quasar: That's like saying: "look, none of the grasshoppers evolved fire-resistant skin when I put the flamethrower to them! Evolution must be false!"